INJURIES TO TRESPASSING ANIMALS. 135 



45. Injuries Inflicted on Trespassing Animals There is no in- 

 herent right to kill an animal simply because it is found tres- 

 passing on another's property. Thus the owner of crops has 

 no right to kill turkeys trespassing on his premises. He 

 "would not be justified in killing a valuable animal found de- 

 stroying property of little value." ''^ The same rule has been 

 applied in the case of hens/® geese/^ cats,^^ cattle,'^ and 

 horses.^" And where the defendant, whose fence was not a 

 lawful one, shot the plaintifif's hogs which were rooting up 

 potatoes in the former's patch, and the latter got the hogs and 

 used them, it was held that he did not waive his right to de- 

 mand damages for the trespass, but merely his claim for the 

 value of the hogs.®^ On the other hand, it has been held that 

 if one cannot otherwise protect his property from the depre- 

 dations of a dog, he will be justified in killing it when dis- 

 covered in the act within his garden.^^ So it was held that 

 one finding a dog coming out of his meat-house at night, and 

 having no means of knowing its owner, had a right to shoot 

 it, and it was no answer to say that he should have con- 

 structed the building so that the dog could not get in.*^ 



89, cited in § 41, supra, it was argued that shooting the pigeon when 

 rising was unnecessary for the protection of the crops, but Mellor, J., 

 said: "It would have been on the ground again after the firing of tlie 

 gun was over.'' This remark was quoted in the opinion in Aldrich v. 

 Wright, and the court said: "That was the objection to frightening the 

 minks: they would have been on the ground again after the frightening 

 was over." 



'° Reis V. Stratton, 23 111. App. 314. See also § 122, infra. 



" Clark V. Keliher, 107 Mass. 406. 



" Matthews v. Fiestel, 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 90. 



'* Whittingham v. Ideson, 8 Upp. Can. L. Jour. 14. cited in § 12, supra. 



" Ford V. Taggart, 4 Tex. 492; Crawford v. Crawford, 88 Ga. 234. 



" Snap V. Pec, 19 111. 80. 



"Champion v. Vincent, 20 Tex. 811. And see Bost v. Mingues. 64 

 N. C. 44. 



" King V. Kline, 6 Pa. St. 318, where the dog had been found eating 

 fish hung up to dry. A garden was considered protected just as a park 

 and a warren were at common law. And see Bradford v. McKibben, 4 

 Bush. (Ky.) 545, decided under the Kentucky statute. 



■^ Dunning ?'. Bird, 24 111. App. 270. 



